Do Great Things

Go to page

Senator

please take this in the nicest of ways, okay white light?
you are the rarest bird on the planet.
My best friend is Hindu and he has the holy spirit.
I've never felt the need to preach a word to him about Jesus.
But I do want to learn about that elephant god, he's just awesome.
my wife wont let me talk about the elephant god any more, she's just not that objective to handle it, she gets subjective over everything, that's why I love her.
hehspiritual atheist... total oxymoron. but I'm okay with that.

Lol - Not really The meaning of atheism has become very clearly defined in its normal usage now but it isn't really - It simply means not believing in God, as in a supernatural being/Intelligence so it doesn't define what you do believe just one thing that you don't believe

I deny Christianity, Islam and Judaism apart from Gnostics,Quakers and Sufism because they give us no other choice but a literal God - They are tools of Government - My understanding of God is in our natural philosophies - All is One and One is All - we are all a part of one spirit and that all is God and yet with in us all is the one - and so on I am a mix of Heathen and Gnostic with a heavy dose of the Old Mysteries for good measure.

All the words associated with religion are words given to our understandings - and or for our usage to explore - philosophize.

And there are:-

Atheism Positive and Negative

If you look up "atheism" in a dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god."[1] From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.[2]

Well-known atheists of the past such as Baron d'Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877) have assumed or have explicitly characterized atheism in the negative sense of absence of belief in God.[3] Furthermore, in the twentieth century George H. Smith, in Atheism: The Case Against God (1979), maintains, "An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that god does not exist; rather he does not believe in the existence of god."[4]Antony Flew, in "The Presumption of Atheism" (1972), understands an atheist as someone who is not a theist.[5] Gordon Stein, in An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism(1980), says an atheist "is a person without a belief in God."[6] A recent pamphlet entitled "American Atheists: An Introduction" says an atheist "has no belief system" concerning supernatural agencies.[7] Another recent pamphlet entitled "American Atheists: A History" defines American atheism as "the philosophy of persons who are free from theism."[8]

Still there is a popular meaning of "atheism" according to which an atheist not simply holds no belief in the existence of a god or gods but believes that there is no god or gods. This use of the term should not be overlooked. To avoid confusion, let us call this positive atheism,and the type of atheism derived from the Greek root and held by the atheistic thinkers surveyed above let us call negative atheism. Clearly, positive atheism is a special case of negative atheism: Someone who is a positive atheist is by necessity a negative atheist, but not conversely.

In my usage, positive atheism is positive only in the sense that it refers to a positive belief—the belief that there is no god or gods. It is positive in contrast to negative atheism, which has no such positive belief. Of course, in another sense that is not relevant here, what I have called positive atheism is more negative than what I have called negative atheism. Positive atheism denies that one or more gods exist; negative atheism does not.

Mayor

They use the scripture about our body being a "temple" (I Corinthians 6:19) and too much alcohol destroys the temple and some people don't know when to stop.

And they use the scripture that says we shouldn't be a stumbling block for others (I Corinthians 8:9)and drinking alcohol might make an alcoholic start drinking again.

They had to really stretch to get to the never drink alcohol rule. I think there was controlling people involved or they would have just said "drink in moderation and use some common sense". But they didn't. It's just my opinion on this, gigi.

I have also heard them say that it was grape juice, not wine............but even they know that's not true.

It's interesting, isn't it, considering that the first miracle we read about in the Gospel is Jesus turning the water into wine. And if there was any question that the wine wasn't really wine, the passage goes on to talk about how folks were astounded that the best wine was saved for last, since it was practice to give the best wine first and then start slipping in the lesser quality wine after the guests had had a few and wouldn't be as discerning.

Trump 2020

It's interesting, isn't it, considering that the first miracle we read about in the Gospel is Jesus turning the water into wine. And if there was any question that the wine wasn't really wine, the passage goes on to talk about how folks were astounded that the best wine was saved for last, since it was practice to give the best wine first and then start slipping in the lesser quality wine after the guests had had a few and wouldn't be as discerning.

I think they made a "law" out of common sense that people should have - don't get drunk and don't drink around people that shouldn't be drinking (don't give them the temptation). Maybe it got out of hand. Or........ maybe the leaders that made up the rule just wanted to control.

Churches have a unique opportunity to control people. Some of that is good, some is not. Sometimes a denomination will get out of hand. There's nothing "wrong" with it but to me it seems disingenuous.

Commentator

Lol - Not really The meaning of atheism has become very clearly defined in its normal usage now but it isn't really - It simply means not believing in God, as in a supernatural being/Intelligence so it doesn't define what you do believe just one thing that you don't believe

I deny Christianity, Islam and Judaism apart from Gnostics,Quakers and Sufism because they give us no other choice but a literal God - They are tools of Government - My understanding of God is in our natural philosophies - All is One and One is All - we are all a part of one spirit and that all is God and yet with in us all is the one - and so on I am a mix of Heathen and Gnostic with a heavy dose of the Old Mysteries for good measure.

All the words associated with religion are words given to our understandings - and or for our usage to explore - philosophize.

And there are:-

Atheism Positive and Negative

If you look up "atheism" in a dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god."[1] From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.[2]

Well-known atheists of the past such as Baron d'Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877) have assumed or have explicitly characterized atheism in the negative sense of absence of belief in God.[3] Furthermore, in the twentieth century George H. Smith, in Atheism: The Case Against God (1979), maintains, "An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that god does not exist; rather he does not believe in the existence of god."[4]Antony Flew, in "The Presumption of Atheism" (1972), understands an atheist as someone who is not a theist.[5] Gordon Stein, in An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism(1980), says an atheist "is a person without a belief in God."[6] A recent pamphlet entitled "American Atheists: An Introduction" says an atheist "has no belief system" concerning supernatural agencies.[7] Another recent pamphlet entitled "American Atheists: A History" defines American atheism as "the philosophy of persons who are free from theism."[8]

Still there is a popular meaning of "atheism" according to which an atheist not simply holds no belief in the existence of a god or gods but believes that there is no god or gods. This use of the term should not be overlooked. To avoid confusion, let us call this positive atheism,and the type of atheism derived from the Greek root and held by the atheistic thinkers surveyed above let us call negative atheism. Clearly, positive atheism is a special case of negative atheism: Someone who is a positive atheist is by necessity a negative atheist, but not conversely.

In my usage, positive atheism is positive only in the sense that it refers to a positive belief—the belief that there is no god or gods. It is positive in contrast to negative atheism, which has no such positive belief. Of course, in another sense that is not relevant here, what I have called positive atheism is more negative than what I have called negative atheism. Positive atheism denies that one or more gods exist; negative atheism does not.

Have you seen the elephant God? He's awesome, just so cool. I have to admit that it was love at first sight, I don't even know him.

frivolous, I know.

Well, I am suspecting that you are very much like me in that you don't like the power game and the politics employed by religion. This includes the set rules of doctrine and what you have to believe to get into the club... I mean heaven, whatever. Men are quite demanding when it comes to their definitions of god and the meaning of scripture. I classify all that as rubbish... I mean religion, whatever.

But I go a little deeper in my take on the Spirit of life. I see it as the source of life, when I say "Creator" ... I'm thinking He created this life we see all around us on planet earth. That's why I'm not holding my breath waiting for man to find life out there in the universe. It takes more than just the right combination of elements, it takes the spirit of life; but I agree with Jen that god could just as easily be doing multiple planets... and for all we know, the rocks are living somewhere out there.

Commentator

You talk about others' ignorance of the scriptures but you get so much wrong.
Jesus was all man and all God, not a ghost.
The Scripture clearly states the circumstances of His flesh and blood birth. The Scripture also teaches that when Jesus appeared to the apostles after His Resurrection, the apostles thought they were seeing a ghost and Jesus assures them that He is not a ghost.

And the faith/ religion thing is really getting old. Believing that a particular religion teaches the truth is not a substitute for faith. It takes a great deal of faith in the things you believe are true to remain strong in a church where humans, with all our faults, teach us and worship with us. There's something that inspires us to forgive and love despite faults of those in the pews next to us. If you choose to believe it's just rote behavior, I contend that this is just a convenient go-to answer for you.
I don't assume you have no faith because you don't belong to a church.

Gigi, WE ARE THE CHURCH. you, me, all the believers. You don't attend a church, you are the church. The church is the heavenly assembly of all the believers; aka, its a spiritual body.

I used the word ghost in place of spirit... hence, Jesus was all man and all Ghost; Spirit, God... same difference. Ever see the term "Holy Ghost"? It's another way of saying God. I used it to emphasize that Jesus was walking in the Spirit on that water. He did this at other times also, remember how he passed through the angry mob in his home town when they were attempting to toss him off a cliff? He slipped into the spirit. Have you had any experience with that?

Commentator

They use the scripture about our body being a "temple" (I Corinthians 6:19) and too much alcohol destroys the temple and some people don't know when to stop.

And they use the scripture that says we shouldn't be a stumbling block for others (I Corinthians 8:9)and drinking alcohol might make an alcoholic start drinking again.

They had to really stretch to get to the never drink alcohol rule. I think there was controlling people involved or they would have just said "drink in moderation and use some common sense". But they didn't. It's just my opinion on this, gigi.

I have also heard them say that it was grape juice, not wine............but even they know that's not true.

The preachers of temperance zoomed in on the word "new" wine. My gut tells me that new wine is this year's wine versus old wine. But the people who saw all kinds of evil in alcohol, figured that "new wine" really meant grape juice and yes, they wrote books on it. I studied it after I read a book from the era (early 20th century) and I see their argument but it felt forced, and what prevented the apostles from just writing grape juice? Besides, I doubt they called Jesus a winebibber because he was fond of grape juice.

Mayor

Have you seen the elephant God? He's awesome, just so cool. I have to admit that it was love at first sight, I don't even know him.

frivolous, I know.

Well, I am suspecting that you are very much like me in that you don't like the power game and the politics employed by religion. This includes the set rules of doctrine and what you have to believe to get into the club... I mean heaven, whatever. Men are quite demanding when it comes to their definitions of god and the meaning of scripture. I classify all that as rubbish... I mean religion, whatever.

But I go a little deeper in my take on the Spirit of life. I see it as the source of life, when I say "Creator" ... I'm thinking He created this life we see all around us on planet earth. That's why I'm not holding my breath waiting for man to find life out there in the universe. It takes more than just the right combination of elements, it takes the spirit of life; but I agree with Jen that god could just as easily be doing multiple planets... and for all we know, the rocks are living somewhere out there.

Mayor

Gigi, WE ARE THE CHURCH. you, me, all the believers. You don't attend a church, you are the church. The church is the heavenly assembly of all the believers; aka, its a spiritual body.

I used the word ghost in place of spirit... hence, Jesus was all man and all Ghost; Spirit, God... same difference. Ever see the term "Holy Ghost"? It's another way of saying God. I used it to emphasize that Jesus was walking in the Spirit on that water. He did this at other times also, remember how he passed through the angry mob in his home town when they were attempting to toss him off a cliff? He slipped into the spirit. Have you had any experience with that?

Days, the miracle was that Jesus,in the Flesh, walked on water. And He called Peter out to him. Peter didn't leave his body and become a ghost. You are attempting to explain miracles of Jesus in the context of human limitation. I know that sounds weird because you're talking about His being a ghost, and ghosts are not human beings. But ultimately, you're trying to find a way that someone who looks like a human man can walk on water and pass through a crowd, or appear in an upper room. When that man is Jesus, all is possible.
And He clearly explained He was not a ghost but flesh and bone.

Mayor

And Days....as far as us all being the Church. I agree with some of what you said. But why do you go out and try to teach? Why did you go to ministry school? Did/do you feel that you're supposed to go out and lead people home? This is exactly what others do inside those brick and mortar buildings we call churches.

Senator

Have you seen the elephant God? He's awesome, just so cool. I have to admit that it was love at first sight, I don't even know him.

frivolous, I know.

Well, I am suspecting that you are very much like me in that you don't like the power game and the politics employed by religion. This includes the set rules of doctrine and what you have to believe to get into the club... I mean heaven, whatever. Men are quite demanding when it comes to their definitions of god and the meaning of scripture. I classify all that as rubbish... I mean religion, whatever.

But I go a little deeper in my take on the Spirit of life. I see it as the source of life, when I say "Creator" ... I'm thinking He created this life we see all around us on planet earth. That's why I'm not holding my breath waiting for man to find life out there in the universe. It takes more than just the right combination of elements, it takes the spirit of life; but I agree with Jen that god could just as easily be doing multiple planets... and for all we know, the rocks are living somewhere out there.

Lol Ganesha is not in the least bit frivolous - The God of success and destroyer of evils and obstacles - a god of education, knowledge wisdom and wealth - his head symbolizing the soul and his body earthly existence ( the god man ? ) his trunk wisdom and so on - how can we not love him? Oh and that he rides the lowly mouse ;-)

We differ in that you believe in God the Creator - I believe in God as being Creation ( The whole Mystery not simply the creator of The Mystery) - that the God we know is a tool of exploration/philosophy - And no I absolutely do not agree with jen, she struggles with it too in actual fact - we are here alone and what happens to and on this Planet is our responsibility alone - This way of thinking above all others is my argument against these false religions - that we give up our power and give it to Gov - hold up our hands and say 'there is nothing we can do, God knows best ect' - It is the will of Allah' That is the problem -

Of orthodox religion - no I don't hate them, well not completely nor with the passion I once did, even though our true religions/philosophical structures have been usurped and belittled by them/Gov, they still hold within them our spirituality - within them too are the secrets of the History of our journey in and out of the imprisonment of our souls since the devastation of our truths and so freedoms -

Ah well ;-) We are lucky to be in the 'out' even though that too is being usurped -

Commentator

Lol Ganesha is not in the least bit frivolous - The God of success and destroyer of evils and obstacles - a god of education, knowledge wisdom and wealth - his head symbolizing the soul and his body earthly existence ( the god man ? ) his trunk wisdom and so on - how can we not love him? Oh and that he rides the lowly mouse ;-)

We differ in that you believe in God the Creator - I believe in God as being Creation ( The whole Mystery not simply the creator of The Mystery) - that the God we know is a tool of exploration/philosophy - And no I absolutely do not agree with jen, she struggles with it too in actual fact - we are here alone and what happens to and on this Planet is our responsibility alone - This way of thinking above all others is my argument against these false religions - that we give up our power and give it to Gov - hold up our hands and say 'there is nothing we can do, God knows best ect' - It is the will of Allah' That is the problem -

Of orthodox religion - no I don't hate them, well not completely nor with the passion I once did, even though our true religions/philosophical structures have been usurped and belittled by them/Gov, they still hold within them our spirituality - within them too are the secrets of the History of our journey in and out of the imprisonment of our souls since the devastation of our truths and so freedoms -

Ah well ;-) We are lucky to be in the 'out' even though that too is being usurped -

There's a bigger picture and we the tiny minded humans living on this planet just can't see it, but it is right in front of us. These stars rip apart and reform. So there is no beginning and there is no end. That's why I see God as the spirit that created life; and that's also a lot more than people realize. What infuriates me is the way religion keeps people behind the red tape; the way they classify people as secular and then demand... Do Not Think For Yourself. I've been tossed out of a half dozen churches for daring to believe the scriptures over their doctrine; and that includes the ministry where I trained for ministry.

And then there is an ancient history that is being covered up. You know it, I know it, and it is obvious why it has to be covered up; to float a false system. So then the maddening part is picking through everything we were taught and everything we were able to research and tear it all apart and try to figure out what was there 10,000 years ago, 20,000 years ago, 50,000 years ago, and 500,000 years ago. And it isn't possible, but we can formulate glimpses.

Commentator

Days, the miracle was that Jesus,in the Flesh, walked on water. And He called Peter out to him. Peter didn't leave his body and become a ghost. You are attempting to explain miracles of Jesus in the context of human limitation. I know that sounds weird because you're talking about His being a ghost, and ghosts are not human beings. But ultimately, you're trying to find a way that someone who looks like a human man can walk on water and pass through a crowd, or appear in an upper room. When that man is Jesus, all is possible.
And He clearly explained He was not a ghost but flesh and bone.

Gigi, God is Spirit. Ghost is just another word for spirit. That's why we call him the Holy Ghost. The gospels and Acts are chock full of men going between the spirit world and carnal world.

You have a spirit... in fact, your spirit is the real you; you are a ghost. You don't become a ghost when you die, you became a ghost when you were born. Transformation happens to your ghost.

I'm not trying to find a way that a human can walk on water, I fully understand how that happened. Jesus was walking in the spirit, and when Peter stepped out in faith, he stepped into his spirit. Your thought is that it is a miracle and that demands physical bodies or it is an insult to God. My thought is it is a miracle and it is a lesson both; remember Jesus said we can do everything he did; the miracles were not willy nilly, they were there to teach us. How about this; the physical body was sealed inside the spirit and as long as Peter believed he stayed afloat; but as he doubted the spirit dissipated and he started to sink. Does that work for you? However you want to think of it, I just want you to see the spirit.

Senator

There's a bigger picture and we the tiny minded humans living on this planet just can't see it, but it is right in front of us. These stars rip apart and reform. So there is no beginning and there is no end. That's why I see God as the spirit that created life; and that's also a lot more than people realize. What infuriates me is the way religion keeps people behind the red tape; the way they classify people as secular and then demand... Do Not Think For Yourself. I've been tossed out of a half dozen churches for daring to believe the scriptures over their doctrine; and that includes the ministry where I trained for ministry.

And then there is an ancient history that is being covered up. You know it, I know it, and it is obvious why it has to be covered up; to float a false system. So then the maddening part is picking through everything we were taught and everything we were able to research and tear it all apart and try to figure out what was there 10,000 years ago, 20,000 years ago, 50,000 years ago, and 500,000 years ago. And it isn't possible, but we can formulate glimpses.

The Ancient Gods were our ancestors - three generations - so that we could always touch our roots, always keep our feet on the ground as our heads reached the heavens - we could always touch base, trace back and understand our journey.

Within the temple all were equal, slaves, women - all were equal on that level of what we call spirituality - which has nothing to do with the supernatural - it is not apart from us, it is us, we are a part of it. It being the all of creation, which is named God.

Instinct -intuition - imagination - each generation killing the one before -

Senator

This was the whole point behind the holy ghost becoming the man Jesus. Remember Jesus walking out on the water in the middle of a storm? What was that? Do you really think Jesus walked all the way from shore? What for? Limitations? The holy ghost just appeared on the water in the middle of that storm, then walks up to the boat and it is Jesus... and what did the apostles think? They thought they saw a ghost, which they did. Then Jesus comes up to the boat and says fear not it is me... right. Peter says, If it is you... ask me to come out on the water with you. Because he's talking to a ghost, get it? A ghost that just appeared to them in the middle of a storm, and the storm hasn't ended... same idea at the resurrection; Jesus appears to the eleven, and they are scared again, right? Ever see a ghost? scary stuff. and this ghost says, recognize me, it is me, in the flesh. Was it really? Was he really returned to the flesh? Heck no, he visits for short spurts and vanishes right back into the spirit. So what was that all about?

See, when I read the apocalypse, I struggle with whether we are really returning to reign on the earth or whether we just do so in spirit. Did Elijah return to prepare the nation of Israel for its messiah? yes....... in spirit. Ask John, are you Elijah? Nope, he is John. Ask Jesus is John Elijah? Yep he's Elijah. Which is it? Both. Elijah's spirit returns, not his flesh. Now we have 2 witnesses coming. Who are they? The Father and the Son. In the flesh? No, it is the lighting down of their spirit. Is this Jesus returning? yep. Just ask them, ask the Son, are you Jesus? Nope, but his spirit is resting upon me. Get it? So then the 42 month ministry is repeated on steroids and then what? Jesus returns again... okay, which way this time? See my dilemma? Are the saints that live the next 1000 years in the kingdom doing so in spirit or in the flesh? And even if they do take a bodily form... what will that amount to? It isn't a carnal flesh, it doesn't eat, sleep, carry on like this flesh we have now, it doesn't get hot or cold or need to breathe air, it isn't reliving the old flesh; that stuff is gone forever.

But there is a bodily return. The scriptures make that clear. The saints set up a political kingdom and rule politically on earth. But that still doesn't say that the body we do that in is carnal; it isn't, it is a spiritual body. So what kind of presence is that? Isn't that a spiritual return? Anyone thinking your flesh shall be fresh as a child means it will be a carnal child's flesh is nuts, that's just a descriptor of the kind of bodily presence your spirit will have. We will still be ghosts. When I wrote, "do we finally make good on the return? Or was that just poetry?" ... I'm questioning how much life we will have? I'm afraid it won't be very much, certainly not with the struggles our current life has... what will that life consist of? ...how much staying power will our spiritual bodies have? Will we really live down here 24/7/365 for 1000 years? Or will we make an appearance like Jesus did after his resurrection? ... and then just hang around in spirit. Is the kingdom a poetic kingdom; the ruling of the holy spirit in men, or is it a physical kingdom with us in their presence ruling over them? So far, it has been a poetic kingdom, without any political ruling except as an extension of the ideas each of us receive from above. Remember, the kingdom is already started, the only difference the first resurrection makes is political, everyone that has died in the Lord is already resurrected, they already have their robes; their spiritual bodies; what we are waiting for is the manifestation of those bodies on earth, but that still wont change them back from spiritual to carnal; they will still be ghosts.

I've my whole life believed the Bible to be spiritually true and spiritually inerrant but probably didn't word it that way early on. I've never argued for the literal truth of it. Though I do carve out the elements of the Nicene Creed to be true. I've also never been able to imagine an afterlife and what it would be like physically. I've only hoped that existentially I may keep the company of those I've cherished.

Learning about cuttlefish and how unbelievably intelligent they are stunned me; especially how they acquired that in such a short life span - they only live a year or two. It then occurred to me 70 years is a short time too. Are we really only slightly lived longer cuttlefish? We could just be narcissists who cannot believe our mighty Ids and Egos should just vanish as so much dissipating heat. Or there really could be a God.

Which options gives you the most comfort? I don't think a non-belief structure is necessarily debilitating in processing life. After all the cuttlefish manage just fine with no theological belief system that we can discern, why shouldn't we? I think we all should turn to our inner selves and reconstitute our inner dialog with God as it was when we were just children and probably at our truest believer selves. It seems more real and more important than whether or not nature has been turned too much to man's will. It's only because of man's will that maybe we can live longer than we have in the past; when we were even more cuttlefish like for it.

Senator

See here's my problem. If God created us, why would he test us? Is it a grand suduko game to see who will have "staying power" to last 'til the final game? Do those who are raised in a Christian household, indoctrinated into the Christian point of view, singing "Jesus loves the little children," at an advantage over those who have to convert from another source of indoctrination?

This is it, Days: the fruit flies live one day and die. We live 70+ years and die. We like to pretend that there's some cosmic or glory-based diety to save us from the fruit fly's fate. But there's not. We are just fruit flies who think we're greater than they. No one cares if we read the Bible or sing "Jesus loves the little children" - we will die and decompose along with the fruit flies. If we're lucky, we'll decompose and feed the earth; if we're not we'll poison it with our embalming fluids.

Let say you could make your friends/children from clay. When you did one of those friends betrayed you and tried to bury you even though you loved him most. Maybe the betrayal happened because you never really knew him and it occurred to you that maybe your new children would be given a lifetime for you to see which to pick from the litter. Seems reasonable doesn't it?

Don't worry though. Those that don't make the cut won't lose existence, they just won't be kept close to God but rather far away and most likely in the company of those that also were not compatible with the company God has wanted to keep. A place called hell. A place that has been characterized in an anthropomorphised way so that the concept of it would be accessible to the human mind. Being kept from honest and selfless goodness for an eternity strikes me as an existence worse than standing in a lake of fire for that time.

The team you're choosing is either Team Church or Team Prison. I know plenty of people who would prefer Team Prison over Team Church for any number of reasons so maybe as so many jokes go more fun will be had in hell.

You know all chemicals are natural. Embalming fluids are not poisoning the earth for any geologically significant measure of time. You should really get over that kind of purist thinking. It is more meaningless than a fruit fly. The planet has supposedly gone through phases that have devastated all life forms. From planet killer asteroids and snowball earth scenarios and a finite number of millions of years later all was fine. If humanity is not all that special why do you care about nature more?

You can take all that Uranium you've mined, laser treat it and dilute it back into the Uranium cake you centrifuged it from and put it in the exact place you found that cake and nature would be none the wiser.

If you are a true evolutionist you realize that man cannot do anything to kill life on earth permanently.

Senator

Senator

Religion sets up doctrinal wars and pretends that the scriptures are words chiseled in stone and then argues over what the message was. Jesus said, "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life" ... it is a movement of the spirit. Remember how Genesis begins? The spirit moved upon the waters. All the faiths were generated by movements of the holy spirit. Moses, Jesus, Mohammed were sent to different peoples; Moses to the Jews, Jesus was "a light to the Gentiles" for the most part, and Mohammed picked up the rest of the flock of Abraham; the Arab world. Each time, the prophet carried the message of the spirit, and each time the result was shaped by the continuous abiding spirit. Take away the spirit from any of the faiths and they vanish. We think the faithful just give up, we see it from our perspective, but I see it from the heavenly perspective; it is driven by the spirit, if the spirit quits, the faith dies; the spirit is the fuel and the faith is the fire. The spirit is sent into the earth and faith results. If the spirit doesn't keep feeding faith, faith dies down. Sometimes there is a surge of spirit in one of the faiths and a huge conflagration results. a wildfire of faith. Like the Renaissance and reformation that followed. The people it is happening to, don't necessarily understand it. Afterwards, dead scholars come along and split hairs, look at what was recorded, but they dont understand that isn't what the movement was all about, that's just what got recorded; the movement was the holy spirit moving amongst humans, if you didn't experience that, you don't know what happened there.

Senator

please take this in the nicest of ways, okay white light?
you are the rarest bird on the planet.
My best friend is Hindu and he has the holy spirit.
I've never felt the need to preach a word to him about Jesus.
But I do want to learn about that elephant god, he's just awesome.
my wife wont let me talk about the elephant god any more, she's just not that objective to handle it, she gets subjective over everything, that's why I love her.
hehspiritual atheist... total oxymoron. but I'm okay with that.

Senator

Bingo. They are not teaching us what life is, they are producing workers for the employers. Atheists never figure out that there is a spirit, Christians think the afterlife is the same life they are living, Buddhists think they are winning the battle against evil spirits (fat luck taking on the spirit world by yourself, Billy Jack), Hindus and Catholics tend to follow religion thinking it will grant them a reward in the spirit (like watering a rock every day expecting it to grow into a tree), Jews and Muslims are still following the Law, not even looking for the spirit... in short, no one is learning about life, no one is able to teach about life, the system keeps children busy with dead facts and figures and calculations, attempts to prepare them for employment, but is totally unaware that human beings are spirit beings that can receive and grow in the spirit... if you find that path, you wont hardly find anyone else on it with you.